Posted on 02/17/2005 3:27:06 AM PST by Pharmboy
Edited on 02/17/2005 4:11:57 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Pat Mitchell, president of PBS,
plans to step down next year.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 - It was no accident that PBS found itself turning to Elmo, the popular "Sesame Street" character, to lobby on Capitol Hill this week. There were not many options.
Public television is suffering from an identity crisis, executives inside the Public Broadcasting Service and outsiders say, and it goes far deeper than the announcement by Pat Mitchell that she would step down next year as the beleaguered network's president.
Some public television executives said that running PBS was a thankless job, and that managing a far-flung network composed of independent fiefs around the country was a particularly daunting assignment. They also said they were facing larger issues that would challenge any executive, like increased competition from the cable industry.
Corporate underwriters have been less willing to finance PBS programs, which has left the network increasingly dependent on Washington, where Republicans criticize its programming as elitist and liberal.
The network has also struggled to develop popular new shows.
"The biggest problem we've got is the structure we've got," Alberto Ibarguen, the chairman of PBS and the publisher of The Miami Herald, said in an interview yesterday. "It assumes a lot of government funding, continuing heavy levels of corporate image advertising and no competition. But in the world we're in - the world of increased cable competition, less and less government funding and cutbacks in corporate image advertising - it's a significant problem if that's your business model."
Mr. Ibarguen added: "The risk is the tighter your budgets get, the less you can afford to fail. If you can't afford to fail, you can't afford to take risks."
Among the challenges that Ms. Mitchell has confronted is a trend, lasting nearly a decade, in which corporations have scaled back on the so-called "image advertising" through which they had once financed programs like "Masterpiece Theater." According to PBS's financial statements, revenues drawn from program underwriting - which are paid directly to producers, but catalogued by PBS - reached a five-year peak of $221.9 million in 2001, dropped to $179.4 million in 2003, and rebounded slightly to $184.3 million last year.
PBS hopes to relieve some of the pressure by creating a huge endowment from the proceeds of reselling the spectrum used by its stations when they trade their current broadcast positions for new high-definition stations later in the decade. But that will take persuading the same Congressional and administration officials who have objected to its programming.
Conservatives have complained about Bill Moyers's news program (he has since retired from it) and about a recent children's program featuring a rabbit named Buster who visited a pair of lesbian parents.
After Education Secretary Margaret Spellings threatened to retract financing for that program - a controversy that some called Bustergate - Ms. Mitchell decided not to distribute it.
In an interview on Wednesday, Ms. Mitchell, 62, said she had felt no pressure, either from inside her board or outside of PBS, to step aside.
She also said she had not been personally pressured to change programming by Republicans at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides federal money to the system. But she said her programmers had worked with their counterparts at the corporation, which is led by White House appointees, in developing several new shows, including a talk show for the conservative commentator Tucker Carlson.
"They certainly want to make sure we are providing a balanced schedule," she said. "We believe we are. We check that with the people we report to - our member stations and the American public."
One high-level executive at PBS headquarters in Washington, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the situation for PBS, said new managers at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting had been concerned about a perceived liberal bias at PBS as well as difficulties in fund-raising.
"The thing to remember with public broadcasting is that everything is steered by the money," the executive said. "What used to be a unique thing is now in this competitive environment and has to do whatever it can to survive, which means bending in a way it used to never bend."
Alberto Ibarguen is chairman
of PBS.
Now that 85 percent of Americans subscribe to cable or satellite television, PBS's children shows, historical dramas and wildlife documentaries face competitors like the History Channel, Discovery, A & E, the National Geographic Channel, BBC America, Nickelodeon, and The Learning Channel. PBS has responded by forging new alliances, like a recent agreement to show HBO films.
Ms. Mitchell, who was interviewed between lobbying meetings, said she would devote the rest of her tenure to raising money. Officials at PBS and its affiliated stations are beginning to lobby for a share of the windfall the federal government may get later this decade when public television stations and other over-the-air broadcasters stop using the airwaves to transmit analog signals, relying instead on digital signals over cable and satellite systems.
Once the broadcasters' part of the spectrum is open, the federal government stands to collect tens of billions of dollars by reselling it to other users like wireless broadband companies. Lobbyists for public television stations are supporting legislation that would put some of the money in a trust fund for public television.
Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat sponsoring the legislation along with Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, has called for the trust fund to be administered by an independent agency following the sort of procedures used by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
Some critics, like Tim Graham of the Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group, are reluctant to give PBS any independent endowment.
"They want to create an empire that does not have to answer to the Congress or the people," Mr. Graham said. "Conservatives do not want to give more tax dollars to television stations that attack their ideas."
But there are some sympathetic conservatives, at least among the advisers on the Digital Future Initiative committee created by Ms. Mitchell, which met Wednesday in Washington to contemplate how PBS could put a trust fund to use. Norman Orenstein, a committee member who also sits on the PBS board, said Republicans on the committee believed that a trust fund could pay for socially useful programming.
"We're focusing on education and children and making the case that public broadcasting can do valuable things in a digital age that no one else can or will do," said Mr. Orenstein, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research group.
But he did not expect the money to come easily.
"You couldn't have a tougher budget environment," Mr. Orenstein said, "and you're going to have vicious scrambling over discretionary domestic spending."
Referring to the recent programming incident, he said, "The timing couldn't have been worse on the Buster thing. This is not a time you want to be in the cross hairs."
PBS is also being criticized by others, like Jeffrey Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy and a longtime advocate of more money for public television.
"I'm concerned that PBS is so desperate for funding and support from the Republican-dominated Congress that they're willing to sell their legacy," Mr. Chester said. "They could forgo their historic mandate to do cutting-edge programming and replace it with Bush-administration-friendly educational content."
John Tierney reported from Washington for this article, and Jacques Steinberg from New York.
That's right...it's only a perception by us wascally conservatives. Nothing going on here folks...move along please.
I expect more from Tierney, he's the only non-socialist reporter for the Times.
Tucker Carlson?
Tucker Carlson??
That guy's a joke. Probably why PBS is considering him.
The collapse of the evil empire continues. How they, whom the late Dr. Parkinson referred to as "esoterrorists" are moaning and whining. No more "vanguard of the masses." What a shame.
Just listen to them....wahhhh, wahhhh, poor PBS.
Their biggest problem is that they only time they had decent programming was during fundraising, when viewers had to put up with 50% of the time spent listening to self-serving egomaniacs trying to get pledges.
Scam's up. Like the article said, there actually are plenty of stations actually providing good programming, without a government dole.
PBS can pound sand. They've been sucking the govvie titty for far too long. Getting a free ride to spout their liberal tripe and STILL we uniformily reject it.
"Perceived" liberal bias???
Puuhleeeaze!
Yeah, welcome to the Real World, PBS, where there are real markets and real consumers and real competition and real decisions to be made. Sucks being weaned off the gubmint teat, doesn't it?
I have never heard a single report state the Israeli position fairly or accurately, but always in the end, slanted to favor the occupied lands or the Palestinian refugee, etc.
They never seem to accept that their slanted reporting creates the opinion for some people. In other words,
some people take their word for gospel and agree with them because its PBS, not because they do their own research or follow the news.
Thats why they can survey their listeners and find many who agree with them, they've created the opinion.
If they slanted the other way they would still have close to the same results in most parts of the country, except from a better educated audience.
Back in the '80s I worked with a guy who spent 10 years as an art director with the WNET, the NYC/NJ local PBS affiliate. He said that the place was almost completely run and staffed by gay guys who used money to buy cases of champagne and other comfort items. He said that almost every Monday morning there would be a new gay boy employed there as a gofer--someone one of the bosses met over the weekend.
He said we had no idea what went on there...
Thankless??
No, fellas, that's Worthless!
Like making shows that people want to watch. Having "Conservitives" on talk shows, not middle of the road Soclialists who you call Conservitive.
Like not spending what you don't have.
Right on the money. Funding artists without enough talent to make it on their own.
The only time PBS shows decent programming is when they're running a fund drive. Otherwise, it's just liberal crap. If she excluded the stuff they showed during pledge drives, there's no way she could call that network balanced.
Also, where does all the money from Elmo and Clifford paraphanalia go? Doesn't PBS get a kick back on all that kid stuff? If they still want government funding after the way they market that junk to the kids, then that alone should be reason to defund them.
Right. They had the audacity to single out Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher for having the audacity to do the same thing.
Dirty little PBS secret: Elmo, Barney, et al could survive on their own. Why not let 'em?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.